Re: [POLL] Should we accept breaking changes to get rid of Org libraries that perform side effects when loading?

[Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net>]

Russell Adams <RLAdams@adamsinfoserv.com> writes:

>> * [#inline] Inlinetask
>> * [#inline] END
>
> I think the multiline aspect is where the concept breaks down.
>
> "I want a special invisible heading inside the content of a heading,
> that also supports optional multiline contents". Sounds horrible to code.

It is not. The horrible part is that we rely on some things working
magically without special account for inlinetask existance. Otherwise,
it is just a matter of extra cond.

>> Because it will be feature regression.
>> And it will not be possible with a custom plugin without significant
>> changes in how all the headline editing commands, agenda, sparse trees,
>> etc work - they all assume very specific heading syntax.
>
> Regressions are not the end of the world. Org does too much and grew
> very fast, which is not sustainable.

But they should not be taken lightly either.
https://bzg.fr/en/the-software-maintainers-pledge/

> Given limited maintainer time, culling bad features is a fact of life.

_I_ actively use inlinetasks. And it is not a bad feature by itself. The
current syntax is bad, yes. And the current state with inlinetasks being
optional feature.

> My recommendation is cut it out, until someone with more time can make
> a rational and compelling case for a clean syntax that isn't a huge
> special case or write a separate module.

Is there any hurry to delete things? If we still keep a new syntax open
for discussion, I see no reason to remove anything.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>